Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Now the mask comes off. The last line of the gentleman: They are legislating from the bench; we do not like their decisions. Believe me, my colleagues, the original proponents of this split and many of its supporters are doing this not based on judicial efficiency, but on ideology. If you want to deal with rising population, you authorize new judgeships. The major reason in any of the variables where the Ninth Circuit has lagged is because we have not filled the vacancies that were already authorized. You can have one circuit, you can have three circuits, you can have 10 circuits, but if you do not keep up with the growing litigation requirements by authorizing and filling those judgeships, you will have greater delays. It is a very simple equation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Perhaps the most eloquent and forceful argument against the amendment being proposed and the split being proposed by the gentleman from Idaho came from the former chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, a Montana justice, Judge Browning, who felt very strongly that the interests of justice were not served by this particular split. As I listened to the proponents of this amendment talk, the judges do not want it. The lawyers do not want it. They are not talking the merits. They are scared of the judges. We hear no clamor from the litigants about a split of the circuit. We hear no argument that there is some compelling public ground swell for this split. Some of my colleagues do not like this, and they want to ascribe motivations to people who disagree with them. They are afraid of the judges. They assume the judges are not going to act on what is in their interests. They are not going to lose their judgeships over this split. They believe justice is not served by this split. I urge opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am not challenging the constitutionality of the proponent's amendment. I am challenging the wisdom of the proponent's amendment. If we do this, we are doing something unprecedented with significant adverse budgetary consequences in a fashion that will not distribute the caseload in any sense equally, that is opposed by the judges, that is opposed by the lawyers who practice in this court and, to the extent that it is ideologically motivated, foists on our poor California Republicans a circuit that they think will not serve their interests. So I hate to see this squabble between the Idaho and Montana Republicans and the California Republicans, but the fact is this is why, even though you have the authority to draw these lines, it may not be wise to. I urge opposition to the amendment, and I include for the Record a letter from the highly praised Ninth Circuit judge from Montana opposing the split. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Billings, MT, October 28, 2003. Re: H.R. 2723 Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, Washington, D.C. Dear Chairman Smith: I am a United States Circuit Judge with chambers in Billings, Montana. I write in opposition to H.R. 2723. I am also authorized to state that the following Ninth Circuit Judges whose official stations are within the boundaries of the proposed Twelfth Circuit join me in opposing H.R. 2723: Judge Otto R. Skopil (Portland, Oregon), Judge Betty Binns Fletcher (Seattle, Washington), and Judge Jerome Farris (Seattle, Washington). In addition, Judge James R. Browning (San Francisco, California), Judge Alfred T. Goodwin (Pasadena, California), Judge Robert Boochever (Pasadena, California) and Judge M. Margaret McKeown (San Diego, California), whose initial official duty stations were within the boundaries of the proposed Twelfth Circuit (Montana, Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, respectively), have authorized me to register their opposition to H.R. 2723. All of these judges maintain strong connections with their former states of residence. In particular, Judges Goodwin and McKeown wished me to emphasize that they spend a significant amount of time each year in the Northwest, maintain offices there, and retain close professional relationships with the bar and bench in Oregon and Washington, respectively. Sincerely, Sidney R. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. BERMAN. In its present form, yes.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I support the gentleman's amendment, but I am curious why an amendment that is being offered in order to avoid a Budget Act problem requires a waiver of the Budget Act.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I stand up in opposition simply to state my support for the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules denied me and the rule denied me the opportunity to offer a variation of this amendment in committee, even though they allowed one other nongermane amendment, which we just adopted. This amendment, I believe, addresses a serious problem in the current structure of the Federal procedures. If an outside party complains that a Federal judge has engaged in misconduct, that party has a right to have the presiding judge entertain his complaint. If it is the district court, it is the chief judge of the district that that judge sits in; if it is the appellate court, it is the presiding judge of the circuit; and if it is the Supreme Court, it is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If the presiding judge or the chief judge does not resolve that, the complainant is entitled to a three-judge panel. That is for misconduct. But for recusals based on an apparent conflict of interest, asking a judge to step aside and not hear a particular case, there is absolutely no process other than the judge himself who is being alleged to have not been appropriately sitting on that case because of conflicts of interest or apparent conflicts of interest; that judge gets to decide for himself. That system is not right. What this amendment would do in order to be germane and apply as a pilot project, and Chief Justice Rehnquist himself highlighted this statutory anomaly to several U.S. Senators; these Senators had expressed concern that Justice Scalia did not recuse himself from a case in which Vice President Cheney was a named litigant. While this case was pending, Justice Scalia had taken a duck-hunting trip with the Vice President. Not only did they hunt together for several days, but Justice Scalia also traveled with the Vice President aboard Air Force 2. In a public document explaining his refusal to recuse himself from a case involving his hunting buddy, Justice Scalia wrote that he did not believe ``his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'' In commenting on Justice Scalia's decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote to the Senators, ``There is no formal procedure for a court review of a decision of a Justice in such a case.'' While I believe that my notions of the propriety of Justice Scalia's refusal to recuse himself are not important, the opinion of the American people is important. The efficacy of our court system depends entirely on the perception that the courts will administer justice impartially. If the courts lose the trust of the people, they lose their only real power. Reasonably or not, fairly or not, many folks around this country did question whether Justice Scalia could be impartial in a case involving a hunting buddy. It is clear that Justice Scalia's declaration of impartiality did not itself put these questions to rest. To the extent these questions persist, our court system suffers. This motion to recommit in the new circuits established so that the motion will be in order will establish a process by which the Federal courts can design a procedure where refusals by the judge to recuse himself can be heard by other judges, thereby getting rid of the problem of the appearance of conflict of interest. I want to make it very clear. I am not coming to the conclusion that Justice Scalia had a conflict of interest; I am coming to the opinion and the conclusion which I believe strongly that someone other than Justice Scalia should be able to make this decision, just like someone other than an accused justice should be able to make the decision about whether or not there has been judicial misconduct. We are leaving full authority to the Federal courts to design that process, but the notion that there is some appeal, some procedure, some process by which a challenge to the fairness and impartiality of a judge will be heard by someone other than the judge is a necessity. I urge the adoption of this motion. Unlike the judicial misconduct statute, the recusal statute currently provides no opportunity to appeal a judge's refusal to recuse himself. My amendment would have simply brought the procedures for addressing recusal and misconduct decisions into line with one another. Chief Justice Rehnquist himself highlighted this statutory anomaly in a letter to several U.S. Senators. These Senators had expressed concern that Justice Scalia did not recuse himself from a case in which Vice President Cheney was a named litigant. While this case was pending, Justice Scalia had taken a duck-hunting trip with the Vice President. Not only did they hunt together for several days, but Justice Scalia also traveled with the Vice President aboard Air Force Two. In a public document explaining his refusal to recuse himself from a case involving his hunting buddy, Justice Scalia wrote that he did not believe ``his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'' In commenting on Justice Scalia's decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that, ``There is no formal procedure for a Court review of a decision of a Justice in an individual case.'' What I believe about the propriety of Justice Scalia's refusal to recuse himself is unimportant. What is important, however, is the opinion of the American people. The efficacy of our court system depends entirely on the perception that the courts will administer justice impartially. If the courts lose the trust of the people, they lose their only real power. Reasonably or not, many folks around the country did question whether Justice Scalia could be impartial in a case involving a hunting buddy. It is clear that Justice Scalia's declaration of impartiality did not, itself, put these questions to rest. To the extent these questions persist, our court system suffers.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment. During the Civil Rights movement there was great public turmoil over whether or not white and black children should go to the same schools; whether people of different races should eat in the same areas of restaurants, drink from the same water fountains, sleep in the same hotels; even whether consenting adults of different races should be allowed to marry each other. After years of struggle and public discourse, the minority went to our country's highest court and to its elected representatives in Congress, and at long last, in their quest for equality, our government realized that Black Americans are Americans. Today, only 40 years later, these questions seem preposterous. To children learning about that time in school, it seem unreal. Listening to the debate today, I have to wonder if we will ever learn from the lessons of our history. Today we're talking about an amendment to the Constitution--the document that assures all Americans that they are equal. We're asked to amend the Constitution in a way that will say all Americans are equal, except for this one group. What we're really talking about today is one question. Are Gay and Lesbian Americans, Americans? I hear those who support this amendment saying we have to amend the Constitution to protect us from activist judges who are not upholding the notions of family that existed when the country was founded. If the authors of this amendment had served in Congress during the Civil Rights movement, we could have heard them argue to defend segregation with an ``Education Protection Amendment'' after the Supreme Court's activist decision in the Brown v. Board decision. After the Loving v. Virginia decision they would have reacted to the judicial activism with a ``Racial Purity Protection Amendment.'' I don't believe that the proponents of this amendment, or for that matter the majority of the American people, truly believe that a gay couple living down the street in a committed relationship is a threat to their own marriages or to other marriages in their community. I don't think they really believe it because such a belief would be completely nonsensical. The proponents of this amendment argue that two women who fall in love and want to marry will eventually be the downfall of all families in the United States. They say it will lead to the breakdown of the family. I want the people in favor of this amendment to look at the more than one million children of gay and lesbian parents in this country today one million children of gay and lesbian parents in this country today and tell them that you're here fighting to protect the rest of the country from their family. The Members who support this amendment claim they want to protect marriage. Open your eyes and look around. There are plenty of threats to marriages today--adultery, divorce, just the challenge of two adults making it through life's struggle together. Two people falling in love is not a threat to marriage--it's the basis of marriage. If the other side were sincere about wanting to protect marriage, we'd have an amendment on the floor today constitutionally banning divorce. If they really wanted to protect children from the dangers of being raised without a father and mother, we'd be banning single parenthood. But we aren't. Each Member of this Congress took a vow to defend the Constitution when we took office. The Marriage Protection Act would defile our Constitution, and we should uphold our duty today by opposing it.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the majority ever steps back for a second and looks at the situation that they are in. They run around asking the Committee on the Judiciary in the House to pass legislation stripping Federal courts of jurisdiction, including the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction, to decide fundamental constitutional questions presented under the U.S. Constitution, and at the same time they run around asking the Committee on the Judiciary of the House and the House of Representatives to pass bills writing the venue laws for personal injury actions brought in State court. This is Federal intrusion in areas traditionally reserved for the States and an effort to reverse everything that Marbury v. Madison and all of its subsequent cases have said with respect to the Federal Judiciary's role in dealing with questions arising under the Constitution. My friend, the very able chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, says on the question of frivolous lawsuits, help is on the way. But the truth is, help is not on the way for those who are looking for it. The germ of a good idea, mandatory sanctions for filing of frivolous pleadings or frivolous motions, improved by an amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), to say that where an attorney is responsible for three such frivolous filings he is subject to suspension, that to be reviewed by an appellate court so that there are real teeth and deterrence to the filing of frivolous lawsuits, is combined with an overreaching, egregious effort to exchange the venue laws of 50 State legislatures and the courts of those States with respect to personal injury actions, any of which could be corrected by those State legislatures on their own in matters having no serious Federal interest. Once again, the Republican majority, as it has done consistently for the past 10 years in the area of tort reform, overreaches. It takes a good idea, adds so many outrageous and overreaching provisions to that good idea that the other House ignores it. Let us go back and look at a little history. In 1994, the Republicans came down with their Contract For America, and one of them was tort reform. I will give a classic example. In the committee they eliminate joint and several liability. There are arguments for it and there are arguments against it. Either the plaintiff who is not able to recover and made whole is hurt, or some defendant is potentially liable for the entire judgment, even though he is only partially responsible. In the Committee on Rules two amendments are offered; one to take care of the minor tort feasers, the people who are involved in a relatively small amount of the negligent conduct that produced the injury; and the other one to wipe out that rule. The Republican majority, fearful that the compromise proposal might pass the House, does not allow the rule for that amendment to go through and, instead, allows the one to simply reinstate the existing law. In that bill, which of course never passed the Senate, in the medical malpractice legislation, where they resisted any effort to make the caps on pain and suffering relevant to today's costs and today's times and the current situation, whether it is on class action lawsuits, where they sought to suck up all State actions without any balance, they have consistently overreached. And the result, as they are doing with this bill, of overreaching is that we lose a chance to make some improvement in the present system to deal effectively, in this case with frivolous lawsuits, because they want everything or they want the issue, and end up with nothing.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join in saluting Mr. Jeffery J. Daar, Chair of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, who is being honored on August 14 by the Sherman Oaks Democratic Club. Jeffery is a remarkable man with many accomplishments in both politics and law. Since founding his own professional law firm 22 years ago, Jeffery has handled cases that are both highly complex and in the public interest. As a specialist in complex litigation, he represented California municipalities in 5 years of insurance insolvency court proceedings, resulting in a legislative amendment to the California Insurance Code. He has led important consumer class action cases that have reached the highest courts in California, and has authored several influential publications covering varied topics from the insurance industry to election law. He is a leader in his field. Jeffery was born and raised in Los Angeles. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree at Claremont Men's College and his Juris Doctorate in 1982 from University of California Davis. His strong interest in politics was first evident during his college years when he served as President of the Student Democratic Coalition, a statewide organization of more than 20 college Democratic Clubs. Jeffery has taken an active part in his community's school system, serving as an elected member of the managing councils of both Dearborn Elementary School and Holmes Middle School. He also serves as a Member of the Board of Directors of The Zacaries Foundation, a nonprofit education foundation. In addition, he helps promote our community through his work as a Member of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Jeffery is married and has four children. Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in saluting Jeffery J. Daar for his impressive career and dedication to the people of California and to congratulate him on earning the Democratic Volunteer of the Year Award.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Ambassador Yuval Rotem, who served as consul general of Israel in Los Angeles from September 1999 to August 2004. Ambassador Rotem recently wrote an article for the Los Angeles Daily News on his experiences in Southern California that I would like to share with you today. L.A.'s Story About Living Side by Side (By Yuval Rotem) Critics say Los Angeles is only image. The city, they claim, presents an illusion to the world much like the movies Hollywood projects on its big screens. The myth goes that it's a city of facades, with the favored tools being the editor's airbrush or the plastic surgeon's scalpel. There are no friendships here, only contacts and connections. After five years on ``extended vacation'' in Southern California, I have found these statements far more superficial than the city they decry. As a permanent resident of the tormented Middle East, my time here has left me in awe of the wide variety of religions, colors, languages and life philosophies that intermingle in Los Angeles. To be a minority is to be in the majority in L.A., and despite its fragmented sprawl, coexistence is real, with each community adding to the flavor of the city. That is not to say, however, there aren't absurd aspects about life in Los Angeles. There is, for example, the infatuation with cars and the impossibly tangled web of freeways. When we ``bump into'' people, it is likely in the most literal sense--a fender bender on the 405. It is little wonder, then, that I learned one of L.A.'s more important lessons with the help of my car. Traveling on the 10 alone opened my eyes to the multitude of faces, languages, cuisines and cultures that run into each other here. Starting in Venice, the stereotypical images of L.A.--beach bums soaking in the sun and fitness fanatics pumping iron at Muscle Beach--abound. Moving east, the Jewish neighborhood of the Pico corridor became a second home for me. On my way downtown, I stopped in Koreatown, historic West Adams district and eventually in East L.A.--making friends in each community: each group diverse, each group proud, each group American. I traveled this freeway and others often during my tenure here--visiting a variety of communities along the way. What I have learned here has given me a Thomas Guide of sorts to maneuver and navigate through our differences to arrive ultimately at our similarities. Dorothy Parker once described Los Angeles as ``72 suburbs in search of a city,'' but I sometimes wonder how badly they really want to find it. The communities I passed on my drive down the 10 didn't seem to be looking for it; they already appeared to be perfectly at home and at peace as Angelenos. On July 4, for instance, people from all over this city simply don't appear interested to gather en masse at some civic center, but prefer neighborhood parades, local fireworks displays, and backyard barbecues. Despite this geographic disconnection, the people of Los Angeles are nonetheless remarkably united. They share the same debates about Kobe vs. Shaq, the same frustrations with the traffic, the same concerns about schools and public safety, the same appreciation for the amazing beauty and vibrant cultural life that L.A. has to offer. Most importantly, the diverse population of this city shares a truly laudable spirit of respect and tolerance for ``the other.'' There have been, of course, many tough times. However, friendships and relationships that transcend ethnicity and religion are the norm here. By and large, people relate to each other as individuals--not as groups, not as categories, not as stereotypes. As one who comes from the Middle East, where ethnic divisions have paralyzed us, I am in awe of the positive cross-cultural interaction between the people of Los Angeles. From the inside, it is easy to see the problems--social and economic inequality, tensions that sometimes bubble to the surface, the challenge of educating 750,000 children who collectively speak more than 80 languages. It would be easy to focus on the chaotic events that have marked my time here: the energy crisis, wildfires, earthquakes and the recall election. Yet to me, an outsider, Los Angeles is something of a miracle. At the end of the day, you see millions of people from every background imaginable living side by side, working together and forging a future under the bright California sun. In today's world, where terrorism, prejudice and hatred widen the already-existing gaps between peoples, this is an inspiration. As I return to my own homeland, I carry with me the hope and promise that Los Angeles offers to the future--a fitting going-away present from the city of dreams.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting my very good friend and an all around great guy, Bill Lambert, who for 40 years has served the United Teachers of Los Angeles as their Political Director. His colleagues will honor him at the UTLA Leadership Conference this summer. Bill has worked tirelessly for decades on behalf of the teachers and the students of Los Angeles. He has counseled me on the intricacies of many difficult education issues, provided special insights on many bills I've sponsored, and hounded me mercilessly to work harder for his schools, find more funding for his projects and solve more problems for his teachers. He has demonstrated a special commitment to improving vocational education for students who are not college bound. When Bill began his involvement in Teachers' organizations in 1957, teachers in Los Angeles had no family health insurance plans and no added bonuses for teaching over 30 years. He was a founder and key member of advocacy groups including the Elementary Teachers Association of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Teachers Association. An extremely successful negotiator, he has succeeded in winning both an excellent salary increase and improved benefits for Los Angeles' teachers. Bill was born in the Bronx, but spent most of his life in Los Angeles. An alumnus of UCLA with a Masters Degree from Cal State Los Angeles, he began his long career in education in 1955 as a teacher at Montague Elementary School. He soon gained leadership positions among his fellow teachers and eventually became a legislative advocate on their behalf. He helped lobby along with United Teachers of Los Angeles for the revolutionary Rodda Act, which in 1975 became the first collective bargaining bill for teachers in California history. Among his finest accomplishments is Bill's work for Children of the Dream, a program that puts children of diverse backgrounds--Israeli and Arab, Pakistani and Indian--together to help shatter stereotypes and create understanding. In 1997 he won the NEA Applegate Doros International Understanding Award. Bill and his wonderful wife, Lenore, have four fine, successful children. Please join me today in honoring my close friend, Bill Lambert, for his outstanding contributions to our community and for his steadfast commitment to the education of our children and to their teachers.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in offering our congratulations and very best wishes to one of the First Ladies of American music. Frances W. Preston will soon retire as president and Chief Executive Officer of Broadcast Music Inc., (BMI). The business acumen of Frances Preston is exceeded only by her charisma and charm, and by the respect, affection and admiration her colleagues and peers have for her. She has been lauded for her empathy and for the gracious manner in which she treats every person, from the hottest star to the humblest worker. She is an exceptional executive, leader, role model, and friend. With Frances at its head, BMI has grown to represent over 300,000 American and foreign songwriters, composers, and music publishers in licensing music and collecting and distributing royalties from play on radio and in television, films, ads and other media. Its artists represent all types of music and its catalog contains 4.5 million works. During her 18 years as president, its revenue has grown more than three times to more than $625 million. BMI has become an internationally respected leader and a unique success story as the entertainment industry has been transformed by digital technology and globalization. Sensitive to the changing world of music, Frances has focused on domestic licensing, foreign performing rights, legislation for fair compensation for writers and publishers, and copyright protection. Frances joined BMI in 1958 after working in music and broadcasting in Nashville. She opened BMI's regional office there, and led her company to preeminence in the South, signing writers and publishers with roots in both country and other types of music. In 1964, the year the Nashville BMI Building opened on Music Row, Frances became a vice president of BMI--reportedly, the first woman corporate executive in Tennessee. She has often been called a trailblazer in the music business but Frances was also a trailblazer among women. She was the first woman Rotarian in the State of Tennessee. She was the first woman to work with the National Chamber of Commerce. She was one of the first four women--and the first businesswoman--to be invited to join the Friars Club in New York and the first woman to serve on their board of governors. Frances moved to BMI's New York office in 1985. She was appointed Senior Vice President, Performing Rights in 1985 and President and CEO in 1986. She is a member of BMI's Board of Directors. In 1992, in recognition of the important role she played in building Nashville's music industry, she received the highest accolade in Country music: induction into the Country Music Hall of Fame. In 2004, she was also inducted into the Gospel Music Hall of Fame. She is a lifetime member of the board of directors of the Country Music Association--one of only five individuals to be so honored--and has served as president and chairperson of the board. She is also a lifetime board member of the Gospel Music Association, where she served as chairperson and president, as well as a lifetime member of the Nashville Songwriters Association International. Frances is vice president of the National Music Council and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Academy of Popular Music/ Songwriters Hall of Fame, a board member of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and a director and member of the executive committee of the Broadcasters' Foundation. Frances' many interests and her expertise extend far beyond the music industry. A distinguished member of business and political circles, she served on President Jimmy Carter's Panama Canal Study Committee, the commission for the White House Record Library, and Vice President Albert Gore's National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council. She has given selflessly of her time and resources to many of America's most worthy charities. She is President of the T.J. Martell Foundation for Leukemia, Cancer and AIDS Research and the recipient of its 1992 Humanitarian Award. She is an activist and a philanthropist who became involved in the fight against cancer after the disease claimed her close friend and ski instructor. The Frances Williams Preston Research Laboratories at the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center is named in her honor, as is Vanderbilt's Frances Williams Preston Building, the focal point for the VICC's research. Included among other awards far too numerous to list, Preston has received the Women's Equity Action League (WEAL) Achievement Award, presented to only five women each year, honoring her as one of ``America's outstanding women in business and labor.'' She has been honored with the Broadcasters' Foundation's Golden Mike Award, and the President's Award from the National Music Publishers' Association in recognition of her contributions to the music and music publishing industries. Preston was singled out by Esquire magazine as ``the most influential and powerful person in the country music business.'' Ladies' Home Journal listed her as one of the ``50 Most Powerful Women In America'' and Entertainment Weekly placed her second in its Top 10 listing of ``The Powers of Country Music.'' Over the years, Business Nashville, BAM, Radio Ink and Hits have listed her as one of the most powerful people in the music industry. In 1997, she was one of only ten businesswomen featured in Rolling Stone's ``Women in Rock'' special issue. Frances has been a partner and strong supporter to those of us in Congress who care about copyright protection. She has vigorously supported the fight against music piracy and vigorously guarded against any legislation that would reduce the rights and incomes of songwriters, composers and publishers. I am honored to congratulate Frances on her retirement and ask my colleagues in the House to join me in wishing her many happy years ahead.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think I just heard the Supreme Court of the United States analogized to the politburo of the Soviet Union, but I am not sure. The Hostettler fix was tried before. It has never happened, but it was tried before and here is what Attorney General William French Smith said in a letter to Strom Thurmond back in 1982: ``The integrity of our system of Federal law depends on a single court of last resort having a final say on the resolution of Federal questions. State courts could reach disparate conclusions on identical questions of Federal law, in this case interpreting the Constitution, and the Supreme Court would not be able to resolve the inevitable conflicts.'' If you want to do away with the supremacy clause, repeal Marbury v. Madison, and rip apart any uniform effort to enforce constitutional protections, you should vote for this bill. But one day, some liberal runaway court in some State, justices which we cannot impeach and that we did not confirm over in the other body, one day that court will come down and say that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional because of the full faith and credit clause; and the losing parties, the people who want State control on the issue of who can marry, will not be able to appeal that to the U.S. Supreme Court under this bill. What a ridiculous situation.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Wu and I rise today to ask our colleagues to join in saluting Mr. Li-Pei Wu, Chairman Emeritus and Director of GBC Bancorp, and the new Presidential Policy Advisor to Taiwan's President Chen Shu-Bian. He is a remarkable man with a myriad of accomplishments. Mr. Wu has enjoyed a distinguished and successful career as a banking executive. He served as CFO of the National Bank of Alaska and President of Alaska National Bank of the North. In 1982, Mr. Wu took the helm of General Bank in Los Angeles. Under his able leadership, both General Bank and its holding company, GBC Bancorp, developed into industry leaders. Mr. Wu was born in Changhwa, Taiwan, one of the poorest communities in Taiwan. Despite facing political oppression, he earned a B.A. in Economics from National Taiwan University and taught at the Kwanglon Business School. After his brother was sent to prison by members of the Nationalist Party, Wu left Taiwan to earn his MBA at Fort Hays State University. He struggled with the English language, but his determination and business acumen soon landed him important positions in Alaska's largest financial institution, the National Bank of Alaska. Li-Pei Wu's accomplishments go far beyond the business world. For more than 35 years he has dedicated his time and energy to advocate for democracy and human rights in Taiwan. He is the founder and chairman of the Formosa Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan public interest group that seeks to foster an environment of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, while also promoting understanding and friendship between Taiwan and the United States. He was the founding president of the Taiwanese American Citizen League, which has grown from one to twelve chapters nationwide. He has worked tirelessly to help Taiwanese- Americans achieve success and leadership opportunities in American politics, culture, and society. In addition, he serves as an honorary member of the Pacific Council on International Policy and as a Board of Advisors member for the Asia Society of Los Angeles. Mr. Wu's commitment to human rights, peace, and economic success has been widely recognized. He is the proud recipient of the 1998 Ernst & Young Greater Los Angeles Entrepreneur of the Year Award and has been asked to teach at the University of Cambridge as a Distinguished Guest Lecturer in the school's Department of Oriental Studies. He has served as a delegate to Taiwan's National Affairs Summit at the direct invitation of Taiwan's President Lee Tung-hui. In 1990, he was the recipient of the Outstanding Entrepreneur Award bestowed on him by the National Association of Investment Companies. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in honoring and thanking Mr. Li-Pei Wu for his outstanding contributions to our community and for his steadfast commitment to human rights and strong relations between the United States and Taiwan.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, very, very reluctantly I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend and, more importantly, our wise and respected colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Lantos). He and I are hardly ever on opposite sides of an important issue relating to the Middle East. Everyone knows this amendment will not become law, irrespective of what happens today. Neither the Senate nor the conference committee will accept this transfer. The administration would veto it if it did. So, if you pardon the use of a military metaphor, this is simply a shot across the bow. There are ample reasons to take that shot. On democracy promotion, respect for human rights economic reforms, the Egyptian record is woefully inadequate. The state-sponsored media is filled with repulsive antisemitism and outrageous over-the-top scapegoating of Israel and the United States for the serious problems afflicting the Arab world. Egypt faces no external existential military threats. But this is the wrong time to take this shot and the wrong time to pass this amendment. Why? Because it will not achieve its purposes, and it threatens to undercut America's national interests in seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How so? For the first time in a very long time, the political and military leadership of Egypt appears willing to take real risks that will enhance Israel's security and force Yasser Arafat to end his support for terrorism. We are at a critical juncture in the Middle East. Prime Minister Sharon, the father of the settlement movement, has proposed and is deeply committed to an historic disengagement plan that will lead to the removal of all Israeli settlements and military installations from Gaza, at the cost of severing his ties to much of his own political base. This plan is supported by a substantial majority of the Israeli people. Egypt has a huge stake in the success of the disengagement plan. The last thing they want is a terrorist base camp in Gaza that exports instability to their country and other parts of the region. In recent weeks, Egypt has begun to play a very constructive role in discussions with Israel and the Palestinians to help ensure an orderly Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Most importantly, for the first time since the outbreak of violence, they have put significant pressure on Yasser Arafat. President Mubarak's envoy, General Omar Suleiman, has demanded that Arafat relinquish control over all Palestinian security forces and agree to their consolidation. In addition, he has told Arafat he must fire more than 70 corrupt Palestinian officials, or risk losing any Egyptian financial assistance. Egypt has expressed its willingness to train the Palestinian security services in Gaza as the disengagement plan proceeds. In light of Arafat's repeated refusal to take steps that could stop the violence, we are not sure whether the Egyptian efforts will bear fruit. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with a quote from the Associated Press from yesterday: ``The first time an Egyptian President took the risk of reconciling with Israel, he was shunned by other Arabs and vilified by his own citizens. A quarter century after Anwar Sadat became the first Arab leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel, his successor, Hosni Mubarak, is contemplating yet another risky step in the world of Middle East peacemaking: Sending Egyptians to help keep the peace in Gaza if Israel withdraws. ``And as with the 1979 treaty, which ushered in a lasting if cool peace, Egypt finds itself accused of a variety of missteps.'' Mubarak is acting on behalf of hated Israel to many of the people in the Arab world. What a strange time to propose this particular amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast a number of rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 305, ``no'' on rollcall No. 306, ``no'' on rollcall No. 307, ``no'' on rollcall No. 308, ``no'' on rollcall No. 309, ``no'' on rollcall No. 311, ``no'' on rollcall No. 312, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 314, ``no'' on rollcall No. 315, ``no'' on rollcall No. 316, ``no'' on rollcall No. 317, ``no'' on rollcall No. 318, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 319; ``no'' on rollcall No. 320, ``yes'' on rollcall 322, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 323, ``no'' on rollcall No. 324, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 325.